Setting early
I've been following the World University games, and was just catching up on the Softball World Cup, when I came across a quote that I found interesting. It's from the US Softball head coach Ken Ericksen.
I'm going to paraphrase him a bit here, but he was saying that you can see the difference in the teams when you have players who play together for a length of time, and players who have to come together quickly.
This was the second time I'd seen this kind of quote. The first was in the recap of the US vs. Canada basketball game.
I don't find these excuses, but rather a simple statement of fact. It's hard for a team that's just come together to compete against teams that have played together for a period of time.
As expected, this is my take on it as it relates to rowing.
I'm always of two mindsets when it comes to establishing lineups.
* The first mindset is to get a lineup set as quickly as possible so the boat can spend the season gelling. They'll learn how to win and lose together, and learn how to pull for each other.
* The other mindset is that we try and qualify boats for races, not necessarily athletes. This gives every athlete on the team something to pull for. By not establishing lineups till later in the season, you can test more athletes, and keep everyone working hard and not riding.
Of course there are drawbacks to both.
* The first is that establishing the lineups early limit your testing, and can lead to some stagnation in your athletes. If the seat is set, then you can give 90% rather than 100%.
* By not establishing your lineups till late, you risk the chance of not developing enough chemistry within the lineup. When the chips hit the fan, instead of trusting each other, the boat can splinter as each athlete tries to make up any difference.
So how do you decide?
I've worked at two Division III schools - the University of Puget Sound, and Willamette University. Both programs had similar philosophies when it came to establishing lineups: We qualify boats, not athletes. We use the season to test lineups. Once we've qualified, we'll retest lineups.
This was the same M.O when I was at Pacific Rowing Club. We qualified the lightweight eight with one lineup, but then spent 3 of the next 5 weeks retesting the lineup combinations until we found the fastest lineup possible, one that differed from the lineup in the boat when it qualified for nationals.
Ok so that's a lot of back story. What does that mean, and what does that have to do with the opening of this post?
My current game plan when it comes to lineups and boats is this.
I start looking at racing combinations in the fall. I know that there is a good chance I won't carry the entire team from fall to spring, but I take that as it comes.
I try and establish stroke pairs in the fall, and then tend to leave those athletes together as much as possible. Once established, I train everyone together. I bounce athletes through seats and combinations, recording the lineups, how the practices went, thoughts, etc.
By starting the framework in the fall, I don't feel rushed when it comes to spring. Because I focus on specific races rather than an entire season, I use early races to test lineups.
With four to six weeks left before the big races - regionals, conference champs, etc. - I'll establish racing lineups, and work the boats against each other to make sure that I've got the best combinations possible.
So how does this tie into the opening?
I try and overcome the lack of an established lineup by working everyone together, and by moving everyone through a boat. I feel that by keeping my athletes training together, they build up team chemistry as a whole, thus regardless of the boat they find themselves in, they trust the athlete ahead of and behind them because they know that athlete was there with them.
Granted this doesn't work with every sport, and I know what one of the problems with this reasoning is that the teams - US Basketball, and US Softball - couldn't practice together, and that my teams, even without a set lineup, practice together.
Still my reasoning isn't to explain the issues with those two teams since I don't know, but rather to point out how I try and overcome the chemistry issues when it comes to my teams. It's far from a perfect science - in 2012 I was testing a lineup 2 weeks before WIRAs, and in 2008, I decided against retesting my lineups for WIRAs despite losing my top athlete to the varsity 8 - but it's one that I am comfortable with.
For now.
I'm going to paraphrase him a bit here, but he was saying that you can see the difference in the teams when you have players who play together for a length of time, and players who have to come together quickly.
This was the second time I'd seen this kind of quote. The first was in the recap of the US vs. Canada basketball game.
I don't find these excuses, but rather a simple statement of fact. It's hard for a team that's just come together to compete against teams that have played together for a period of time.
As expected, this is my take on it as it relates to rowing.
I'm always of two mindsets when it comes to establishing lineups.
* The first mindset is to get a lineup set as quickly as possible so the boat can spend the season gelling. They'll learn how to win and lose together, and learn how to pull for each other.
* The other mindset is that we try and qualify boats for races, not necessarily athletes. This gives every athlete on the team something to pull for. By not establishing lineups till later in the season, you can test more athletes, and keep everyone working hard and not riding.
Of course there are drawbacks to both.
* The first is that establishing the lineups early limit your testing, and can lead to some stagnation in your athletes. If the seat is set, then you can give 90% rather than 100%.
* By not establishing your lineups till late, you risk the chance of not developing enough chemistry within the lineup. When the chips hit the fan, instead of trusting each other, the boat can splinter as each athlete tries to make up any difference.
So how do you decide?
I've worked at two Division III schools - the University of Puget Sound, and Willamette University. Both programs had similar philosophies when it came to establishing lineups: We qualify boats, not athletes. We use the season to test lineups. Once we've qualified, we'll retest lineups.
This was the same M.O when I was at Pacific Rowing Club. We qualified the lightweight eight with one lineup, but then spent 3 of the next 5 weeks retesting the lineup combinations until we found the fastest lineup possible, one that differed from the lineup in the boat when it qualified for nationals.
Ok so that's a lot of back story. What does that mean, and what does that have to do with the opening of this post?
My current game plan when it comes to lineups and boats is this.
I start looking at racing combinations in the fall. I know that there is a good chance I won't carry the entire team from fall to spring, but I take that as it comes.
I try and establish stroke pairs in the fall, and then tend to leave those athletes together as much as possible. Once established, I train everyone together. I bounce athletes through seats and combinations, recording the lineups, how the practices went, thoughts, etc.
By starting the framework in the fall, I don't feel rushed when it comes to spring. Because I focus on specific races rather than an entire season, I use early races to test lineups.
With four to six weeks left before the big races - regionals, conference champs, etc. - I'll establish racing lineups, and work the boats against each other to make sure that I've got the best combinations possible.
So how does this tie into the opening?
I try and overcome the lack of an established lineup by working everyone together, and by moving everyone through a boat. I feel that by keeping my athletes training together, they build up team chemistry as a whole, thus regardless of the boat they find themselves in, they trust the athlete ahead of and behind them because they know that athlete was there with them.
Granted this doesn't work with every sport, and I know what one of the problems with this reasoning is that the teams - US Basketball, and US Softball - couldn't practice together, and that my teams, even without a set lineup, practice together.
Still my reasoning isn't to explain the issues with those two teams since I don't know, but rather to point out how I try and overcome the chemistry issues when it comes to my teams. It's far from a perfect science - in 2012 I was testing a lineup 2 weeks before WIRAs, and in 2008, I decided against retesting my lineups for WIRAs despite losing my top athlete to the varsity 8 - but it's one that I am comfortable with.
For now.
Comments